TRWTF is that the method signature declared a primitive return type and not an object... right?

What?

I think it's speaking Java.

I'm unaware of a primitive type in Java named "object"..

That's why Cassidy used the conjunction "and not", to clarify that they thought the return type of the method was not one of the object-derived types, but one of the primitive types (int, boolean, etc).

(The fact that it was spelled out in the OP and commented on by several people that the return type is object, and also this code is C#, is completely beside the point)